Daily Yellowstone journal. [volume] (Miles City, Mont.) 1882-1893, 1887-10-13
Shakespeare or Bacon.
"He That Filches From Ne NV
Good Name Makes Me Poor
Indeed.
Bacon OF Shakespeare

ss"ssh VI
The announcement Of Ignatius Don.
nelly's forthcoming work on the
BacOn-Shakesp-are controversy, has
awakened renewed interest in that
subject. The following is u synopsis
Of paper recently read before the
Bacon Society of London by Mr..
Francis Fearon, and presents in
compact forn the reason why a
great mauy intelligent students OF
shakespeara's plays ascribe their au.
thorship to Lord Bacon:
Il. DID FRANCIS BACON WRITE
"SHAKEsPEARE.n
The natural answer would be "Cer-
tainly not. Can the tradition of three
centuries be wrong? Were our an ncestors
ignorant? Was Shakspere himself an
impostOT? Were his contemporaries
ana friends deceived? Were his sue.
cessors Of the next generation unable
TO detect the imposture?
do you mean to say that there il
any serious doubt that "Will Shak-
spere," the acknowledged author of
the wonderful Plays that bear his
name-the Swan of Avon, canonized
as the divine bard for three centuries
wrote the plays?
mo, no, sir; | won't have il. Shsk.
spere has always been Shakespere To
me, and 50 he shall remain.
And MS for Francis Bacon-LOrd
Bacon having written Sbakespeare's
Plavs! Why introduce that heavy
aud philosophic person on the scene
What had he to do with the matter?
Certainly, now you mention IL,
the two men lived at about the same
eriOd, but two persons more differ.
emily moulded in notions and ideas
you could hardly kave mentioned to-
gether.
Had Lord Bacon written Play ii
would have been ponderous disquisi-
ton in dialogue. legal or philosNpbic
ESSAY in blank verse. And as for his
having written Shakespeare's Plays,
why, good gracious, sir what do you
You are laborlng under a SER
ous mental delusion. Betake your.
.elf TO some quiet retreat and stay
here until you have cleared your
mind Of il and have returned osce
more to the orthodox belief that Will
wrote the Plays that have
passed by his name; belief which was
good enough for our fathers and
erandfathers and may well suffice for
ls.n
Such, | take 1t, is. with little exag-
geration, the sentiment with which
The majority OF persons first hear the
idea pfupounded that the Will Shak-
spere of history did not write the plays
which have so long gone by his name,
and that Francis Bacon did.
Nevertheless | will endeavor TO do
To convince my readers
that there IL, at all events, some
method in the madness Of those who,
like myself, are; converts To the new
and spreading belief.
What. then, is Shskspere's title to
the authorship? OF course, he claimed
Il to himself?
Strange as it may appear, there is
no record of his having done 80; and
vet he seems to have been a bustling
man of the world, by no means diff /
dent, amoney-makiDg manager of n
theatre not a person likely 70 have
hid hisown light under bushel, but
,ne who would rather have boasted
md made the most Of his literary at.
one who, In making, as he
lid, a will, entering into detail OF his
,hattels and effects, down TO his old
,ed .tead, would not have been silent,
is he was, as to his manuscripts and
literary property, which would, had
le possessed any have been the source
" his fortune. surely he would have
appointed literary executor, with
directions rs to the revision and re.
publication Of his plays. Nine Of the
plays usually credited to
shakspere were never heard Of until
he seventh year of his death, and all
# the thirty-seven were in that year
published, with considerable ameuda-
ions by some master hand unknown.
The 1913 Folio has thirty.six plays.
)f these, eighteen were printed then
or the first time-four more were so
hanged, matured or developed as to
,e practically new. Therefore, for the
ext of twenty-five out Of thirty.six we
ire dependent on the Folio. or the re-
fourteen. only nine are not
eriously changed from the original
luartos. The remaining five are so al
cred that, although the original
luartos are good, the altered editions
ire alone authoritative.
But do not the plays themselves
,ear external evidence of his author.
hip? Is not his name upon them
md was this inscription ever chal-
eDged?
II seems TO have been hardly under
TODD that seven Of Shakspere's plays
Titus Andronicus, Romeo and
Iuliet" "Richard H." Richard Ill.,
lrst part OF Henry w. and second
md third parts Of Henry Vl.,"-were
brought out without any
name on the title page that
tx editions Of the poem, "Nenus and
AdoLis,u and four of "Lucrece" were
Ilso thus pulished. Several editions
Il the poems and OF certain plays were
published before 1915. or these edi-
ions, twenty--even had no authors
iame on the title page.
And when the name OF Shakespeare
lid appear outside Of the printed edi-
ion, and assuming what IL not by
my means the fact that what gets
nto print aud il not challenged Is au.
heniic, II may be noted that the name
outside the play il Shakespeare, with
! final "en on each syllable, and gem
,rally. q hyphen between the sylla.
,les-s mode Of spelling which, I
.hink / am right In saying, was not
recog nized by Will Shakspere himself